Prospect of a new Unionist party Deja Vu

[Harry]

I quite like some of the points made by this chap.


The prospect of another Unionist Party is Déjà-Vu, says Donaldson
Responding to increasing speculation that a new Unionist Party is to be formed to oppose the DUP and Sinn Fein’s Power-Sharing arrangement, Kenny Donaldson, an Ulster Unionist Party Officer has stated:

“Many Unionists of my parent’s generation will feel a deep sense of deja-vu. The reality is that Unionism started internally dividing itself when the present First Minister, Dr Paisley and others decided they neither had the stomach, nor the political or civic responsibility to face up to the challenges of accommodating nationalism within an internal political settlement. 30 years later and the penny still hasn’t dropped for some people.

“Let’s be clear; we have the sectarian carve up that we have because people refused to share responsibility for the governing of Northern Ireland decades ago. Furthermore, the terrorist campaign of the PIRA and so-called ‘loyalist’ terrorists were major factors in instilling deep hatred and mistrust between our respective communities. This cocktail of factors meant that no political settlement was deliverable here for a generation.”

Kenny added: “In the run up to 1998 and for the 7/8 years thereafter, the DUP and Sinn Fein set about destroying the centre-ground, fuelled by their own selfish agendas they sought to bring about the conditions, which ensured our Country was carved up between the ‘prods’ and the ‘taigs.’ Despite the fact that this reality has come to pass I am confident that in the medium-long term, the public do not want their children to grow up in a society where there is mutual loathing between the principle protagonists charged with delivering Government. Forget about the amicable photographs, the mutual nods of agreement, the stomach-churning camaraderie on show between the ‘chuckle brothers’ and their respective merry men and women. This is but self-serving spin and mutually constructed choreography.”

Kenny continued: “Unionism collectively needs to realise that fracturing does nothing to assist the aims of promoting the Union. Yes that’s right, I use the word ‘promoting’ because the Union is already ‘protected’ by the enshrined principle of consent which Ulster Unionists negotiated and won in the run up to the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

“My core objective is to see the Ulster Unionist Party rebuild itself so that it can go forth and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I do not see the introduction of a new Unionist Party as advantageous. Do people really believe that Sinn Fein can be removed from Stormont at this stage? The parameters of our political settlement have been set, principally by the UK Government and supported by the Government of the Irish Republic, people need to get real; they need to deliver positive change for the people of Northern Ireland within the realms of possibility. For too long politicians in Northern Ireland sought power, now they have it but they need to realise that with power, comes responsibility,” concluded Kenny.

[Jim]

he DUP and Sinn Fein set about destroying the centre-ground, fuelled by their own selfish agendas they sought to bring about the conditions

That is what we call party politics, get use to it mr Kennedy.

[An Fear Dubh]

I am a bit surprised that no one mentioned the Eoghan Harris message to the UUP in late September.

Eoghan Harris told an Ulster Unionist dinner that it was time for them to close down and form a new party with the DUP. Eoghan Harris, who is an Irish senator (writes for the Sunday Independent, was a Stickie, worked in RTE and was strongly in favour of 'Section 30', worked as an adviser to the UUP and is a friend of Trimble and later adviser FF), dropped the bombshell at the annual get-together of the Castlereagh Central Branch of the UUP, in the Reform Club in Belfast.

Here is the text of the speech:
Politics is a cruel trade and I know its hard for the Ulster Unionist Party- the party that made the Good Friday Agreement possible, and which can claim the lions share of the credit for the peace and prosperity which the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy- it is hard for the UUP to see Paisley's DUP, the party that denounced it for being in government with 'terrorists' now being lauded here and internationally for the performance of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness as co-heads of the government at Stormont.
Not only has the DUP embraced what Lord Bew has called the 'Hitler-Stalin' pact but it has been electorally rewarded for it. Paisley and Robinson have moved onto to your territory and effectively claimed it. So what are you going to do about it? Is there anything that you can do about it ? I believe there is, but it will take courage.
What I am going to suggest will I am sure outrage many of you- it's the Unionist equivalent in 2007 to the consternation I evoked in 1989 when I told the Workers Party that it had to embrace liberal capitalism and the market economy or die. For what I am suggesting is that there no longer is a real foundation for the continued existence of two Unionist Parties and that from a position of relative strength you should approach the DUP about the creation of a new united Unionist Party. I see that Peter Robinson has suggested that your parties should meet to discuss possible areas of co-operation electorally. This proposal makes a lot of sense but it should be part of a more profound engagement between the two organisations.
I know that back in the 1970s there was much talk of a merger between the parties. Nothing came of if in large part for two reasons. One was Ian Paisley's bruising personality and his clear desire to dominate any merged party. The other was the understandable concern of many Ulster Unionists with the influence of the Free Presbyterian Church in any new organisation But in 2007 we are in a very different situation. Paisley is top-dog but in radically new conditions.
First Paisley's party is no longer the one-man band it was in the 1970s / 1980s . It has already won over some former members of this party and clearly the recent electoral results show that it has extended its support into sections of what was traditional UUP support. Second the recent uprising against Ian Paisley within his church and the fact that he will have to resign as Moderator in January shows very clearly that Paisley has been forced to chose between politics and religion and that it is the DUP that has come first. This is a development of real significance for the future of politics here. It has profound implications for relations between the UUP and the DUP.
What it demonstrates is that politics on the island has entered a new period. Not the 'end of history' as the late and unlamented Secretary of State for NI, Peter Hain, recently claimed. Sinn Fein has suffered a major setback in the recent general election in the Republic, but it is far from accepting the long-term legitimacy of partition or the Northern Ireland state. The SDLP shows few signs of reconsidering its strategy of competing for suitably 'green' credentials with the Shinners. And while the southern political class has signed up for the acceptance of Northern Ireland's right to exist, there still remain powerful forces in the Republic's media and in the collective unconscious of the southern electorate that cleave to a nationalist narrative of the carnage which Northern Ireland endured for 30 years.
As for the British political and administrative class, despite the herculean efforts of David Trimble, it remains profoundly uninterested in NI and there are little reserves of support or sympathy for the Unionist cause. Read Alastair Campbell's diaries and you will see how charmed and impressed he is with Martin McGuinness and how hard he finds it to show much understanding or sympathy for the massive problems Trimble was having selling the Agreement to the Unionist electorate.
Naturally I am not suggesting that the constitutional settlement is in any danger, or that Unionists will again have to take to the trenches to defend Ulster. Not at all. Unionists have made real gains in the last decade. The violent republican tradition which threatened Unionists from the formation of the state is gone for good. Neverthless, a republican and nationalist challenge still exists and it will have more powerful allies south of the border than any you can conjure up in the rest of the UK.
Thankfully, and thanks in may ways to the work of both Bertie Ahern and David Trimble, you can look south to the many many people in all the main parties who have no time for Shinner apologetics or for northern nationalist whinging. But Unionists would be in a stronger position in the Republic and the rest of the UK if both major Unionist parties joined together in one formation.
Because in such a combination, the breadth of vision and pluralism of the UUP could complement the harder edged but more organisationally vital culture of the DUP. A united party would ensure that Unionists punched above their weight in the Executive and cross-border bodies. It would ensure that when policing and justice are devolved they will be in safe hands. Energies that are wasted in strategically point-less point scoring against each other in the Assembly or in the local media could be used effectively to maximise Unionist influence not only in the political institutions but in the broader process of ideological struggle between unionism and republicanism and nationalism.
There are many tasks which need urgent attention. And one of the major tasks is that of contesting the history of the past 37 years. Progressive democrats in both states have a major job of work to do particularly in not allowing those who lost the war to win the battle to define our recent history. In this matter I must respectfully claim that Unionists have not been good at countering the Shinner narrative which can rely on BBC NI through a mixture of bad elements and a lazy unreflective 'leftist' world view that is as unsympathetic to Unionism as it is to Israel and the USA.
Tempting though it may be to get a short-term boost by exploiting the angst of some DUP supporters with Ian Paisley's 'Chuckle Brothers' routine with Martin McGuinness, it is a pointless exercise when the two parties should be preparing a joint approach to the Eames/Bradley review team who are considering how Northern Ireland should deal with its past.
So my suggestion to you is to take Peter Robinson up on his offer of talks about co-operation . Start with working together to ensure that South Belfast returns a Unionist to Westminster at next general election and that the absentee MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is replaced by an agreed Unionist MP. But make that the beginning of a process that ends four decades of unionist fighting unionist. Remember it was DUP spoiling tactics that gave Fermanagh and S Tyrone to Bobby Sands. Now let them make amends.
I know that many of you have strong reasons of principle for resisting my suggestion. Others remember decades of DUP negativity and abuse. There are long-standing local rivalries and antagonisms. You may well reject my advice and continue to go it alone relying on your sizeable number of Assembly seats and strong local government presence. And in some senses, of course, the DUP is not invincible. It has suffered some defections and may suffer more. It is not clear how smooth the transition to a post-Paisley leadership will be. Events have a habit of confounding our best laid plans.
Let me ask you a question. what is is the strategic basis for two competing Unionist parties? And the answer is none whatsoever. From which it follows that if Sir Reg were to explore the offer of Peter Robinson, he would be showing the same steel as Michael Collins whose supreme virtue, according to Lord Birkenhead, was that he was " loyal to the facts."
I believe the UUP will flourish if it is loyal the facts. But if you decide to soldier on, I think the future is pretty plain. The UUP can endure although I doubt that it will ever retrieve its former glories and the basic long-term demographic trends are not in its favour. So why not take the initiative from what is still a relatively strong position and become the proactive party for a new united Unionism ?
In doing so you would true to the vocation of the original Ulster Unionist Council in 1905 which sought to unite all those who supported the Union . Then you had powerful allies in the rest of the UK against the threat of Home Rule. Now Gordon Brown's vision of Britishness does not cross the Irish Sea. Now its up to yourselves to ensure that Brown and Cameron realise that Ulster remains as much of the UK as Scotland or Wales. A good start would be two extra Unionist MPs at Westminster after the next general election and a united Unionist presence in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I ask you to ask yourself a simple question. Short of stagnation, is there any real alternative to a deal with the DUP. And on what Brian Lenihan, a much loved Minister of the Irish Government called mature reflection you will find that, to quote Mrs Thatcher now, "there is no alternative. " None that makes any sense, that is.

Speaking later, Sir Reg Empey said: "The UUP has always brought people to talk to us who challenge us rather than people who tell us what we want to hear. That has always been one of the distinctions between us and the DUP. "I have already responded to the DUP's offer of a meeting and we are prepared, in good faith, to have a wide-ranging discussion about matters including maximising the unionist vote.
"We have had a long and unhappy history of failed attempts at long-lasting co-operation between the parties so there is no way of predicting these matters."

[An Fear Dubh]

I always seem to find Eoghan Harris's advice and criticism warped and lacks pragmatism. The reason why he retracts so much is because under closer analysis his arguments are deeply flawed. It is obvious he has no trusted friends to 'bounce' these ideas around with. As a quick discussion would easily highlight the weaknesses.

While from a UUP point of view (now that they are so electorally weak) it might seem practical to merge with the DUP and to form one new Unionist party, why would that same view be reciprocated by the DUP? At the moment they are in the ascendancy and the last election showed signs of a UUP electoral collapse. Why would the DUP want to breathe life back into the UUP, and form a pact that might start the re-birth of the UUP electorally? The offer of talks by Peter Robinson is not in my opinion going to concede any advantage for the UUP unless the gain for the DUP is two-fold.

The practicalities of two similar parties forming together to form a merger are very difficult. As one often sees itself as the dominant/larger group and does not want to concede leadership roles to a smaller element. I am trying to think back to when the 'Democratic Left' joined the Irish Labour Party, or was it just key individuals that left the DL and joined the ILP and were they given any leadership positions? But one wonders why such profound advice from Eoghan is not spread to other groupings of similar political persuasion to unite under one banner. Eoghan could suggest to Bertie that FF and FG merge to form one party in the south, thus the need for coalition governments would cease. What are the vast ideological differences between FF and FG? In fact they would be every bit as close as UUP and the DUP. What about a nationalist alliance maybe SF + SDLP + FF, sure they are all nationalist parties! Why do all 'left-wing' parties not form one party? Why in England does New Labour and the New Tories not merge, their policies are interchangeable? In America why not a Republican and Democratic merger? Politics is about making deals, and you want the best deal for your party and supporters, but sometimes that comes into conflict with your party ethos, and personalities also play a part. Forming one large bloc is not always a good thing. Look at the USSR the one bloc did not allow opposition, and therefore it stagnated and died. Forming one large Unionist party will help nationalism, as it will be able to focus directly on one target and the one large party will not have to consider the smaller party on its shoulder. The successful party is the one that gets the balance right, gives little to the opposition, but enough to satisfy, while able to show to their general community that this was the only way to survive.

[earl]

harry said:

I quite like some of the points made by this chap.


The prospect of another Unionist Party is Déjà-Vu, says Donaldson
Responding to increasing speculation that a new Unionist Party is to be formed to oppose the DUP and Sinn Fein’s Power-Sharing arrangement, Kenny Donaldson, an Ulster Unionist Party Officer has stated:

“Many Unionists of my parent’s generation will feel a deep sense of deja-vu. The reality is that Unionism started internally dividing itself when the present First Minister, Dr Paisley and others decided they neither had the stomach, nor the political or civic responsibility to face up to the challenges of accommodating nationalism within an internal political settlement. 30 years later and the penny still hasn’t dropped for some people.

“Let’s be clear; we have the sectarian carve up that we have because people refused to share responsibility for the governing of Northern Ireland decades ago. Furthermore, the terrorist campaign of the PIRA and so-called ‘loyalist’ terrorists were major factors in instilling deep hatred and mistrust between our respective communities. This cocktail of factors meant that no political settlement was deliverable here for a generation.”

Kenny added: “In the run up to 1998 and for the 7/8 years thereafter, the DUP and Sinn Fein set about destroying the centre-ground, fuelled by their own selfish agendas they sought to bring about the conditions, which ensured our Country was carved up between the ‘prods’ and the ‘taigs.’ Despite the fact that this reality has come to pass I am confident that in the medium-long term, the public do not want their children to grow up in a society where there is mutual loathing between the principle protagonists charged with delivering Government. Forget about the amicable photographs, the mutual nods of agreement, the stomach-churning camaraderie on show between the ‘chuckle brothers’ and their respective merry men and women. This is but self-serving spin and mutually constructed choreography.”

Kenny continued: “Unionism collectively needs to realise that fracturing does nothing to assist the aims of promoting the Union. Yes that’s right, I use the word ‘promoting’ because the Union is already ‘protected’ by the enshrined principle of consent which Ulster Unionists negotiated and won in the run up to the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

“My core objective is to see the Ulster Unionist Party rebuild itself so that it can go forth and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I do not see the introduction of a new Unionist Party as advantageous. Do people really believe that Sinn Fein can be removed from Stormont at this stage? The parameters of our political settlement have been set, principally by the UK Government and supported by the Government of the Irish Republic, people need to get real; they need to deliver positive change for the people of Northern Ireland within the realms of possibility. For too long politicians in Northern Ireland sought power, now they have it but they need to realise that with power, comes responsibility,” concluded Kenny.

A Unionist politician who makes sense! Been a long time coming. I'd agree with a lot of what he's said here. Bar the whole Union business!

[An Fear Dubh]

I am unsure if Earl is being sarcastic or not, with everything he says. I can never tell with those little smiley things, and because of my ignorance I find such sarcasm irritable. But I have to live with my own inability to understand.

But I never really considered Kenny Donaldson's assessment as worthy of reply because the analysis was so obviously flawed. The sectarian carve up began with the border being imposed on Ireland because of Ulster Unionist threats of violence. And no 'internal settlement' could begin until both Ulster Unionist and Irish Nationalist aspirations were given the dimension to fulfill their capacity. That did not occur until the GFA in 1998. The reason why both the UUP (and the UUP is not centre ground in unionism that role belongs to the Alliance Party) and the SDLP lost ground because they failed to deliver when they were in positions to steer change.

But what does Earl think of the notions of Eoghan Harris and the possibility of the DUP + UUP = New Unionist Party?

[earl]

anfeardubh said:

But what does Earl think of the notions of Eoghan Harris and the possibility of the DUP + UUP = New Unionist Party?

TBH, I read about 2 paragraphs and then stopped because he was talking complete tosh which was targeted at a specific audience.
Once I read the claim that the DUP was no longer a one man show, I knew he hadn't a barney about what he's talking about. The Doc is still in control of the party. He won't be voted out as party leader, no matter how poorly he performs in that role. He'll go when he's ready. The resulting poor struggle within the DUP will highlight that there are no systems in place to elect a party leader, a very basic and democratic step that most political parties would have worked out together. As regards a United Unionist party, well I'd welcome it. It would give garden centre Unionists less choice to vote, meaning that if they didn't agree with this parties policies, they'd have to vote elsewhere (Alliance or even possibly SDLP in some cases). The power struggle between the differing factions within the party would also ensure that the majority of Unionist politicians would be otherwise distracted and thus at a disadvantage. Unionists have never been united amoungst themselves, and I can't see an 'Ultra Unionist party' doing what no-one else has done.

[An Fear Dubh]

I would certainly agree with you Earl. I look forward to the DUP power struggle once Papa Doc dies.

I think gargen centre Unionists (loved that phrase) are already in a tissy over who to vote for, and the DUP/SF alliance at Stormont has sent hardened Unionists into a state of shock.

[Jim]

And they'll be left behind if they dont come out of that shock. Not waiting around for a few hardliners.

[Wasp]

Everyone else had to wait for hardliners for years and years as in the ira

[Jim]

wasp said:

Everyone else had to wait for hardliners for years and years as in the ira

Yeah, and those hardliners had mass nationalist support in most of their areas. Besides they eneded up entering the mainstream and the real hardliners broke off and have no support.

Do hardline unionists have that support? The DUP have entered the mainstream.

[Wasp]

So what suits republicans now is fine, but if it doesn't suit Unionists now then they are wrong and republicans are right?? FFS if we said the samething a few years ago we would hear some republican excuse after excuse. Now that it suits them everyone else is wrong who disagrees with them.

BTW Jim sinn fein were not the largest nationalist party when everyone else had to wait for hardline republicans as in sf/ira. But then again that is republican democracy for you.

[Jim]

They didnt have to be the largest party, they still had very considerable support. Thats not the case with flat earth unionism.